posted at 10:41 am on November 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Remember how the White House insisted for more than a week that there was “no evidence” that the sacking of the Benghazi consulate was anything more than a spontaneous demonstration over a two-month-old YouTube video that “spun out of control”? Fox News this morning reports that cables from the consulate itself made clear that they expected an attack from local militia groups in the hours before the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. They also told the State Department that they had reason to believe their local security was gathering intel for the attack:

If this is the case, then why wasn’t the FEST team ready to intervene? Actually, as Allahpundit noted last night, the military and CIA did have their teams ready. Now it appears that the State Department, at least, had three hours’ notice of radical Islamist activity in the city “gathering weapons and gathering steam,” plus a very big warning about consulate security being compromised. Yet while the attack took place, no one gave the order for a military intervention. Even hours into the attack, the White House didn’t go any farther than order an evacuation effort at the Benghazi airport.

This “spontaneous demonstration” story is falling apart. And it’s interesting to see how it’s falling apart, too. Earlier, the White House tried to lay off the failure on the intel community, which sparked a flurry of leaks showing that the intel community had warned of this issue and wanted to respond during the attack. This week, the White House has started to shift blame to State, and now we’re seeing these leaks showing that State knew exactly what was going on.

This buck stops at the Oval Office, and it’s only going to be a matter of time before we get the leaks to show it. This is what Jake Tapper meant by the drip-drip-drip of Benghazi:

As of now, the White House has disclosed that President Obama was informed about the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi at roughly 5pm by his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon as he was in a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. At that meeting, senior administration officials say, the President ordered that the U.S. begin moving military assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies.

But beyond that, the White House has punted, saying the Accountability Review Board established by the State Department is investigating the matter and what went wrong. No detailed tick-tock, no information about the president’s involvement in decision-making. In addition, they’re preparing for a closed-door hearing of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence on November 15.

Without question in this hyper-partisan environment, Republicans operatives are fanning flames and creating suspicions where there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, trafficking in false rumors and idle speculation. The White House has felt the necessity to pop its head up to shoot down stories it says are false.

For instance, Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, has said that despite some claims, there was no real-time video of the attack being watched in the Situation Room.

As for recent stories suggesting otherwise, Vietor says, “the White House didn’t deny any requests for assistance. Period. Moreover, what the entire government did – the White House, State Department, Intelligence Community, Department of Defense included – was to work to mobilize all available assets and move them into the region as quickly as possible. That’s what the President ordered the Secretary of Defense and Chairman to do the first time he was briefed about these issues. Many of those assets were later used to reinforce embassies in places like Yemen, Libya and Egypt.”

But that doesn’t mean the myriad questions stacking up are all political in nature, nor that those interested in answers about the Benghazi tragedy are motivated by partisan and nefarious aims.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Cover up only really needs to last until Monday morning or even Sunday evening. After that, any last minute reveals will be buried in the “They’re voting now” and “Evil Republicans Are Making a Political Issue Out Of It” stories. Really, if they get through today without much damage, they’ve succeeded in pushing this off long enough.

If Obama gets reelected, be prepared for the Press to suddenly discovery interest in it, and a flood of stories based on info they’re known about for weeks. Then, they’ll award themselves Pulitzer prizes for their wonderful investigative reporting, and dismiss those of us who wanted answers as simpletons.

Why does the Press love a narcisstic incompetent President? Because they are the same.

“This week, the White House has started to shift blame to State, and now we’re seeing these leaks showing that State knew exactly what was going on.”

So, I guess coming under sniper fire in Kosovo isn’t a qualification for being Secretary of State, either.

Barry fires Hillary?

LMAO. Never happen.

Best bet for the futures of both of Barry and, moreso, Hillary, if she has any future run in mind, is to lose the election and stonewall until they are out of office. Then when the story comes out, they can claim VRWC/smear campaign and the Romney Administration is hiding exculpatory information.

Everything is confusing because it is a mixture of truths, half-truths, and lies. With a dash of stupidity. For instance who thought that youtube story would wash? And which genius thought the intelligence agencies would play the patsy?

Now the Dems, Geraldo and Bob Beckart are claiming that a CIA team was sent to rescue these people. Are they confusing the 2 former SEALS who went from the annex to the consulate with a rescue team?

[karenhasfreedom on November 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM]

If I have this right, Woods came from the Annex and Doherty came from Tripoli.

That, at least, is how I understand it from Ignatius’ “lingering questions’ story from a day or two ago. He didn’t explicitly state that but it was implied by his recount of some events and one was a team of eight were awaiting (‘revving the car engine’) the go ahead and eventually went. I don’t remember Ignatius noting whether it was on their own or they got approval.

Jennifer Griffin has been doing stellar work on this story. She may be bringing down this coverup. Four people are dead and if the revelation of this story brings down the president, so be it, there are 4 people dead and that is indisputable.

But that doesn’t mean the myriad questions stacking up are all political in nature, nor that those interested in answers about the Benghazi tragedy are motivated by partisan and nefarious aims.

JT is right. Simply because there are questions, doesn’t mean there is a political implication behind them, for pete’s sake, there are 4 American men dead and loads of intelligence stolen in a consulate that is deemed “American soil.” To try and paint this as solely a political exercise is an attempt to minimize the value of these people’s lives–their children–their wives–and the right that they had to see to it that their relative made it home safely. Obama failed to see that value by turning his back on them when they needed him to extricate his first digit from his bunghole.

Accusing the questioners of being partisan is the same thing as calling people who disagree with Obama racists. I think it’s rich that the media feels the need to insult people for doing their job. The fact that they are willing to accept anything Obama tells them is all to obvious.

1. Previously the President claimed he affirmatively ordered assistance to "secure the safety of all our people in the region". Now, they say differently, and claim they sat passively waiting for "requests for assistance". Big, big difference.

2. The Mission in Benghazi made numerous "requests for assistance" over an extended period of time. Was the WH aware of those requests? Does this blanket statement extend to include those requests, or is it only intended to include the frantic calls for help as the attack unfolded?

I think the relationship between Fox and Geraldo is short-lived. I remember when he went to Fox, it was during the invasion of Iraq, because NBC wouldn’t send him in with the troops, and Fox would. He made an ass of himself there, and he’s now fighting with the rest of the Fox reporters over this, calling them liars, contradicting the reporting, etc. He’s comparing the raid on Entebee? to this? Talk about dated. He needs to retire.

Mark this down. Investigators are not concerned with these two highly trained Afgani intelligence officers. They just happen to disappear in D.C. the day they are supposed to leave.

This could be the beginning of downplaying another potentially very dangerous situation.

weaselyone on November 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Following is more info on this: ” Major Mohd Farooq Ghanizada is the chief of the Counterterrorism and Organized Crime Section. Captain Alibaba Ghashee is the deputy chief of the American and European Department. Both officers work for the National Security Directorate (NDS), which is Afghanistan’s intelligence agency. Both were supposed to meet their U.S. government hosts in front of a Washington hotel for a return flight to Afghanistan last Friday, but neither showed for the ride to Dulles Airport.”

There are pictures of these two also on the website you linked to.
This causes me to go, hmmmmmm

Benghazi’s Smoking Gun? Only President Can Give ‘Cross-Border Authority’
Sending additional forces into a foreign country always requires the president’s approval. He was either absent, or refused “CBA”

“The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation…

We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more…

General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably “used” in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well — what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.

We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came…”

Accusing the questioners of being partisan is the same thing as calling people who disagree with Obama racists. I think it’s rich that the media feels the need to insult people for doing their job. The fact that they are willing to accept anything Obama tells them is all to obvious.

Cindy Munford on November 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I agree. Tapper might as well come out and call Catherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin liars with lying sources. He’s shilling for Obama.

Without question in this hyper-partisan environment, Republicans operatives are fanning flames and creating suspicions where there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, trafficking in false rumors and idle speculation.

This is the most asinine statement. Speculations aside about what was going on at Benghazi or why the Ambassador was there on 9/11, there is tons of evidence of negligence, dereliction of duty and easily proven lies and cover up by Obama, Hillary, Rice, etc., with their conflicting tales and shifting blame.

Thank you so much. That is an excellent link and needs to be spread around.

When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.

There are also people in the State Department who know more. It’s time for someone to spill the goods on this.

We already know Obama did nothing for the people in Benghazi. But there is no concrete proof and nobody will take actual (as opposed to phony) responsibility.

There is only about a day or two left before the media can legitimately bury the story in the election narrative. We need some cables/e-mails/orders with date/time groups, or the testimony of somebody like General Ham who knows what he was ordered to do or not to do. We need it now, or Operation Stonewall succeeds.

That said, Operation Stonewall can only be a tactical success for The Dear Leader. He is not going to win reelection Tuesday, but the results will be closer than he could ever expect to deserve after the most spectacular example of dereliction of a commander-in-chief in American history. Obama is already defeated in the larger sense and has lost all standing among those who are not already his minions and followers.

There are also people in the State Department who know more. It’s time for someone to spill the goods on this.

INC on November 2, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Exactly. There has to be some career people at State that are not going to leave their career up to the off chance that Obama is re-elected. They have to know that if Romney is elected, he will get to the bottom of what happened and the career folks who covered up will be toast.

The msm, will not, the talk show guys have the people who buy the adds that keep the shows on the air, the R’s are only out to win as it should be,,, but then U.S..

So,, how about a “We the Peoples” TOP TEN Screw Up’s Fraud by Obama list.

1. Benghazi death plot 4 dead.
2. Fast and Furious 1 American dead 100’s of Mexicans dead.
3. Man Made Global Warming Fraud.
4. Tax Money Waste and Kick Back on Solor projects.
5. No Personal Informantion to judge Obama on.
6. No Budget for 3 years by Obama or the Senate.
7. People of no knowledge with jobs in high goverment jobs.
8. Many dead American Fighting Men due to worthless ROE’s.
9. Waste and Fraud wholesale of our Tax Money.
10 That dam high and mighty look down his nose at U.S. shit.

You know, it always amazes me -though by now, I guess it shouldn’t- how a statement from this White House is considered absolute gospel. Beyond reproach. Even after the universally known fact that they flat out lied about the video. If they lied about the video, then why does a statement by little Tommy Vietor mean anything?

More reports of Benedict Obama’s Treason and Dereliction of Duty, that lead to 4 American Deaths! The Dishonor this Traitor has stained the Office of the Presidency and the rest of us with is inexcusable and requires Indictment! The willful demoralization of the U.S. armed services is just the secondary theme. The Butcher of Benghazi, aka Benedict Obama, deserves nothing less than a cell next to the Blind Sheik! The collusion to cover for the Traitor-in-chief by all involved, including Obama’s Enemy of America media, deserves the same! This is nothing to be swept under the rug, like the Repubs did with Fast & Furious! Any such attempts show their collusion and foreknowledge of Treason!
Addendum on the fight against Obama’s Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

Without question in this hyper-partisan environment, Republicans operatives are fanning flames and creating suspicions where there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, trafficking in false rumors and idle speculation.

What the heck is wrong with you Tapper? No evidence of wrong doing? This administration has lied repeatedly and continues to this day to hide behind a so-called investigation as a means to continue to delay and conceal the truth. Unnecessary speculation you say? Are we all supposed to just sit down, shut-up and wait? Republicans shouldn’t be the only ones demanding answers. Republicans shouldn’t be the only ones who are concerned, suspicious, and doubtful. Any Democrat with two functioning brain cells should be just as troubled…and fanning the flames on Benghazi should be a priority for us all.

If they knew three hours in advance, couldn’t they have done something about it themselves — like leave the consulate or something..?

affenhauer on November 2, 2012 at 1:26 PM

No. Because Stevens had an appointment with Turkish (diplomat?) to get the ship with guns off to Turkey. Once they concluded the business, Stevens walked the Turk out to bid him Goodbye and, as he reported, saw nothing untoward outside the consulate, all was quiet. Attack started 40 minutes later with the Turk safe and sound and out of harm’s way.

This was nothing but an arranged wipe out of not only Stevens, but a whole bunch of documents. FBI team was “not granted access” for 24 days after making sure that all the docs and any evidence are in easy reach of anyone. With Stevens asking for Libyan police protection the day prior and not getting any only points out that Libyan government was also complicit in this.

As I asked just a day or two after the attack, What did Stevens know and when did he know it? Look up my posts in Benghazi threads, it was clear from the get go that this was nothing but an elimination attempt to tie up loose ends. At the time it was not clear to me what they may be, now we know that Stevens was running guns to Al Qaeda on Hussein’s orders not only in Libya, but now in Syria. Using our own money, or rather, given the huge deficits we are running, money we borrow from China so that we can arm Al Qaeda with sophisticated weapons. Our sworn enemies, which according to Hussein, he defeated.

On each own, each of these pieces do not make sense and sound like a conspiracy theory, but start adding them all together and see how they fit. I’d love to waterboard a few people and would start with police chief in Benghazi, we’ll get some very clear and precise answers after that.

The only glitch in Hussein’s plans were the two SEALs who refused to stand down and tried all they could to save American lives. I am sure his think thank never accounted for their presence there that day nor their willingness to do what’s right.

Without question in this hyper-partisan environment, Republicans operatives are fanning flames and creating suspicions where there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, trafficking in false rumors and idle speculation. The White House has felt the necessity to pop its head up to shoot down stories it says are false.

The above from Tapper’s page. Anyone else notice this? What in the Sam Heck is this?

“Republicans operatives”?? How about people who want to find out the truth and are doing YOUR JOB for you?

I’m afraid we may be way too optimistic. Something tells me a good amount of evidence has now been “gone”, forever. They are still trying to see what sticks and if after 7+ weeks no one came forward it seems they do have a strategy for going forward.

I hope I am wrong on this and we will see hefty prison terms for a number of these crooks. I also wonder if there is a way to go after media for disseminating false statements.

Doughboy on November 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM
I have to wonder if in some way Stevens had become a problem, because I see no other explanation for the callous disregard for his life.

slickwillie2001 on November 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I had posted something along those lines a while ago. Just this past week someone offered an alternate explanation that is even worse. Stevens was supposed to be kidnapped and then a hostage exchange was to take place, timed to help Obama surge in the election. Unfortunately,Stevens was killed instead, and Obama and those who were in on the plan didn’t have a cover story for that scenario-hence the rapidly changing lies from the Obama administration.

There is clearly an Obama cover-up. Is it a cover-up of incompetence, negligence or treason?